Mediation Liverpool

This dispute was a commercial dispute between an investment firm and an introducer. The value in dispute was just over £80,000. Allegations of breach of contract, economic loss and an element of misrepresentation were all part of the claim. The mediation took seven hours and a settlement was achieved.

Leasing Plc (LP) was a finance company that provides lease asset finance for a wide variety of equipment on a regulated and non-regulated basis.

The option of acquiring assets by means of lease hire is usually proposed to a customer by their chosen supplier. The supplier can then place that business with any broker or finance company of their choosing.

LP deals with numerous suppliers. LP does not appoint or authorise any supplier to act as their agent when conducting a transaction.

Once a proposal is received it is reviewed by the underwriting department to ensure the proposed customer is creditworthy. LP will not pay any supplier unless it is in possession of a document signed by the customer confirming delivery of the equipment specified in the proposal (“Confirmation of Delivery” or “COD”).

This document makes clear that LP will rely upon the statements made therein as evidence that the customer has received the equipment, that, the equipment is satisfactory and that they authorise LP to pay the supplier.

Telecoms (T) was one such supplier which submitted agreements to LP for the financing and hire of telephone equipment to various customers. A winding up petition was presented in respect of T by one of its creditors in  January 2009, an order for winding up was subsequently made in March 2009.

On the 2^nd of November 2006, Estate Agents (EA) entered into a hire agreement (“Agreement”) with LP for the hire of telephone equipment (“Equipment”). The Agreement had a minimum rental period of 75 months at a rental amount of £210.00 plus VAT per month. The Agreement was assigned to N Lease (NL) on the 2^nd  November 2006.

The Defendant has defended the action by NL on the following grounds. The Agreement was an “inclusive” package which included telephone calls. In March 2009, T ceased to provide telephone calls which constituted a breach of the Agreement. The Agreement was cancellable in accordance with section 67 Consumer Credit Act as it involved “antecedent negotiations”.

As the Agreement was cancellable, it should have included notice of the Defendant’s cancellation rights in accordance with section 64(5) of the Consumer Credit Act;

Any cancellable agreement that fails to provide such notice is only enforceable on order of the court, and such order cannot be made where the notice in the prescibed terms was no accurately or correctly stated in the agreement in question;

LP were the agents of T in respect of the provision of telephone and internet services. The failure on the part of T to provide such services constituted a breach of the Agreement by NL.

LP denied that the defence raised a valid defence to this action. LP’s position was as follows:

The Agreement was for equipment only. LP would point to the following:

The fact that the Agreement was clearly and expressly made in relation to equipment only and there was no mention of network services (such as calls);

A Confirmation of Delivery which was signed by EA on the 27 October 2006 and which stated: “in signing this document the Hirer acknowledges the provision of any network services arranged between the supplier and the Hirer are outside of the scope of the rental contract signed.”

In this document, EA also authorised LP to pay T for the equipment which EA would hire under the Agreement. LP relied on this document in a) paying the supplier; b) entering into the Agreement and c) assigning the Agreement. It remained LP’s position that EA would be estopped from denying the contents of this document to which he put his signature.

A verification call which was carried out with EA at 10.50 on the 30^th October 2006 On this call, EA confirmed that:

The equipment had been installed to his satisfaction; He was aware of the lease length, payment intervals and rental amount; and that the supplier was providing network services.

On this call it was also explained to EA that he would required to make payment under the Agreement separately to network services. LP also relied on the confirmations provided by EA on this call in a) paying the supplier b) entering into the Agreement and c) assigning the Agreement to NL

The fact that no complaint was received from the customer relating to the Agreement and the apparent lack of network services from the Agreement (which it is now alleged were included) for a period of 26 months after the Agreement was entered into.

The mediation took place in person, took five hours and settled.

This mediation concerned a complicated boundary dispute over a private road. It was between a working man’s club and a residential neighbour. The Defendants built a gate and a wall across the entire width of the private road.

The Claimant’s claimed due to the defendant’s actions, the right of way, which they enjoyed over the private road falling into the Defendants’ registered title, had been removed. There were various allegations of anti-social behaviour, encroachment, abandonment amongst others.

The mediation was in person and took place in person, lasted seven hours and a settlement was achieved.