I wish to draw the attention of Members to our discussion on 19 May in connection with amendment No. 78 when I undertook to provide Members with a detailed list of the sections in which offences have been raised and details of them. I have copies of the statements which, with the permission of the Chairman, I will circulate to Members.
On section 16 Deputy Bruton has moved amendment No. 84. Section 16 provides that credit agreements which do not comply with the requirements of certain sections of the Act shall not be enforceable by the creditor unless the court is satisfied that the failure was not deliberate and that the consumer had not been prejudiced by the non-compliance. The section applies to the form and content of credit agreements generally as provided for in Part III and also the form and content of consumer hire agreements in section 77.
Deputy Bruton's amendment provides that a creditor must apply to a court before further payment may be collected in respect of an unenforceable agreement. The purpose of sections 16 and 49 is to ensure that collecting payments in respect of an unenforceable agreement is prohibited and by virtue of section 12, a person doing so is guilty of an indictable offence. Therefore, it would be incorrect and would be very odd in this Bill if we allowed a creditor to apply to a court for dispensation to collect payments under an agreement declared unenforceable by a court, because the creditor is already protected under the provisions of the section. For that reason I have given much thought to this amendment. The Deputy's amendment is couched in terms of the consumer applying to the court but the Bill already makes it an offence if it is non-compliant. To apply to the court might bring into play the fact that the court could, one way or the other, decide on what is already an indictable offence. I do not see any safeguard for the consumer in it.