Два года назад я достал визитную кредита. Мой бизнес был платить его с тех пор, но я сделал недоплаты в течение трех месяцев из-за денежных потоков трудности. Dva goda nazad ya dostal vizitnuyu kredita. Moy biznes byl platit' yego s tekh por, no ya sdelal nedoplaty v techeniye trekh mesyatsev iz-za denezhnykh potokov trudnosti.Мой Банк Звонил в моей Ссуде Два года назад я вынул деловую ссуду. Мой бизнес возместил это с тех пор, но я сделал недоплаты в течение трех месяцев из-за трудностей потока наличности. Когда я говорил с моим банком о них, мне говорили, что не было никакой проблемы, и это даже увеличило наш предел кредита по текущему счету. Банк теперь сказал, что это звонит в ссуде и использует личную гарантию, которая разместила бы меня в большую трудность. Где я стою? Это печально типично для случаев, которые я вижу, где банки, имея безопасность личной гарантии, действуют в пути, который противоречит интересам бизнеса, зная, что Вы, владелец, в конечном счете заплатите. В этих ситуациях формулировка документации помещения и гарантии важна. В этом случае, банк, кажется, представляет к Вам, что это отказалось бы от недоплат и даже увеличило ваше помещение кредита по текущему счету. Несомненно, письменное соглашение ссуды не будет иметь 'никакого отказа' пунктом. Это могло утверждаться, однако, что

Это печально типично для случаев, которые я вижу, где банки, имея безопасность личной гарантии, действуют в пути, который противоречит интересам бизнеса, зная, что Вы, владелец, в конечном счете заплатите. В этих ситуациях формулировка документации помещения и гарантии важна.

В этом случае, банк, кажется, представляет к Вам, что это отказалось бы от недоплат и даже увеличило ваше помещение кредита по текущему счету.

Несомненно, письменное соглашение ссуды не будет иметь 'никакого отказа' пунктом. Это могло утверждаться, однако, что устный отказ управляющим банком побудил компанию расширять ее долги увеличенным кредитом по текущему счету.

Эта договоренность могла составить новое соглашение, один из сроков, являющихся этим, на более ранние недоплаты не будут полагаться, чтобы звонить в ссудах. Как гарант, Вы могли утверждать, что банк нарушил соглашение и что предоставление любого отказа или далее продвигает к увольнениям бизнеса вашу гарантию полностью.

Однако, большинство банковских гарантий сформулировано в пользе банка. Случаи, типа этого зависят от отдельных фактов, и ранний совет должен быть взят. Патрик Селлей - поверенный консультанта по Закону Краеугольного камня

patrick.selley@keystonelaw.co.uk

My Bank Has Called in my Loan

Two years ago I took out a business loan. My business has been repaying it since then, but I made underpayments for three months due to cash-flow difficulties. When I spoke to my bank about these, I was told that there was no problem and it even increased our overdraft limit. The bank has now said it is calling in the loan and using a personal guarantee that would place me in a lot of difficulty.
Where do I stand?
This is sadly typical of cases I see where banks, having the security of a personal guarantee, act in a way that is contrary to the interests of the business, knowing that you, the owner, will ultimately pay. In these situations the wording of the facility documentation and guarantee is crucial.
In this case, the bank appears to have represented to you that it would waive the underpayments and even increased your overdraft facility.
Undoubtedly, the written loan agreement will have a "no waiver" clause. It could be argued, however, that the verbal waiver by the bank manager induced the company to extend its liabilities by an increased overdraft.
This arrangement could amount to a new agreement, one of the terms being that earlier underpayments would not be relied upon to call in the loans. As guarantor, you could argue that the bank has breached the agreement and that the granting of any waiver or further advances to the business discharges your guarantee in its entirety.
However, most bank guarantees are worded in the bank's favour. Cases such as this depend on the particular facts and early advice should be taken. Patrick Selley is a consultant solicitor at Keystone Law

www.patrickselley.com 

patrick.selley@keystonelaw.co.uk

07976 911936

Bank Guarantee Claims

Challenging a creditor’s right to call a personal guarantee
Personal Guarantees are more common now than ever and creditors can be quick to take action against a guarantor.  However, not all personal guarantees are enforceable.  Patrick Selley explains how you can defend a guarantee claim.

If you have given a personal guarantee and the creditor is seeking to enforce it, you should seek legal advice first as you may have grounds to challenge its validity.
Patrick Selley, who specialises in bringing claims against banks, financial advisors and financial institutions, explains that despite some creditor's best efforts, many individuals have successfully avoided some or all of their liability under a personal guarantee. 
In this, the first of a series of four articles, Patrick sets out the grounds for a successful challenge to the terms of the guarantee itself.
What is a guarantee?
A guarantee is a particular type of contract (suretyship) whereby one party, the "guarantor", agrees to be liable for the obligations of another party, the "principal".   
Generally speaking, the guarantee will be expressed to be in favour of a third party creditor which in most cases is a bank.  Usually, the obligation being guaranteed will be that the principal will repay the third party a sum of money on or by a particular date.  In a guarantee, the guarantor promises the third party that, in the event of the principal not performing its obligation, the guarantor agrees to perform it instead. 
Key issues for challenging a personal guarantee
When considering whether the personal guarantee can be enforced, there are four key questions to be answered:

• Are there any defences available to the guarantor?
• Has the creditor proceeded correctly against the guarantor?
• Are there any claims available to the principal against the creditor that can be relied on by the guarantor in reducing the guarantee liability?
• What documentation is there that will evidence the guarantor's arguments on one of the three grounds listed above and who has such documents?

This article concentrates on the first of these four key questions by examining the extent to which individual terms in a guarantee may be successfully challenged.
Breaching the equitable principles
When faced with a guarantee claim, one of the most important arguments that you can advance is that the creditor's actions have rendered the guarantee unenforceable pursuant to the equitable principles of suretyship. 
These equitable principles arise independently of the intentions of the parties and, to some extent, independently of the contractual terms.  Further, the creditor, its employees and on occasion its legal team often do not understand these equitable principles. 
One of the clearest examples of the operation of the equitable principles can be found where the creditor allows the principal more time than permitted in the guarantee to pay the guaranteed sums, or varies the terms of the initial loan to allow for further borrowing.  In such cases, the creditor may have rendered the guarantee unenforceable.
Other common examples of conduct on the part of the creditor that may render its guarantee unenforceable include:

• where the creditor deals negligently with other security held by it in respect of the same liabilities; and
• where the creditor alters the liability of the principal under the loan without the knowledge and consent of the guarantor.

Unsurprisingly lenders have sought to exclude these equitable principles through express wording added to the guarantee, for example:
"From time to time we may provide the customer with any credit or facilities, vary cancel or refuse credit, give the customer more time to pay, make any other arrangement, compromise with the customer, take or deal with any security ... If we carry out any of the above acts, or do or fail to do anything else this will not affect our rights under this guarantee".
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (UTCCR), as its name suggests, applies only to consumer contracts and has the effect of rendering unenforceable any terms which are adjudged to be ‘unfair'.
According to the UTCCR, "consumer means any natural person who, on contracts covered by these regulations, is acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession".
When creditors require a director of a company to give a guarantee, it is arguable that the guarantee is not given by the director ‘as a director' but rather that it is given by him in his capacity as shareholder, and is therefore not given by the director in the course of his trade business or profession.
Often guarantees are given by the guarantor's spouse as well, so as to include the martial home as an asset which is available to the creditor should it need to enforce the guarantee.  In such a case, the spouse can also argue that the term of the guarantee that excludes the equitable principles is unfair and so the guarantee should not be enforceable. Indeed, there is a higher likelihood of success for the spouse, where they are not involved in the company. In such a case it is highly advisable to seek legal advice before reverting to the creditor.
Where a term is considered unfair where it "has not been individually negotiated [it] shall be regarded as unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising from the contract, to the detriment of the consumer."  A "term shall always be regarded as not having been individually negotiated where it has been drafted in advance and the consumer has therefore not been able to influence the substance of the term".
The courts will assess the unfairness of a contractual term, taking into account the nature of the goods or services for which the contract was concluded and by referring, at the time of conclusion of the contract, to all the circumstances attending the conclusion of the contract and to all the other terms of contract or of another contract on which it is dependent.
Convincing the court that a term is unfair
Only the court can determine whether a term is unfair.  However, the creditor might not wish to incur the expense of legal proceedings it may lose and may therefore decide not to enforce the guarantee or to settle. 
In both cases, a guarantor will need to advance a strong argument and to produce as much supporting evidence and documents as are available.  Where the creditor holds relevant documentation, the guarantor is entitled to be provided with copies upon request.  Creditors are often slow to recognise the extent of relevant documents that they hold, or are just reluctant to produce them and therefore properly framed requests for documents are important in defending guarantee claims.
If you wish to challenge a personal guarantee, you need to plan a strategy carefully.  Given the potentially high cost of litigation, it may be preferable to reach a settlement with the creditor.  The terms of such settlement can be affected by the manner and timing of contact with the creditor.  Careful and targeted use of disclosure requests for documentary evidence of matters which would go to the question of unfairness can be a useful tool in bringing about an advantageous settlement.
Conclusion
It is often possible to challenge a creditor's right to enforce a personal guarantee.  However, doing so is rarely simple and legal advice from a specialist in this area is highly advisable.
Unsurprisingly, creditors will firmly reject any challenge to a personal guarantee and have standard methods of so doing.  The analysis of the relative merits of their counter-arguments is important. 
Also it should not be forgotten that in most cases the creditor is a bank, and that currently the banks do not wish give the courts the opportunity to strike down a personal guarantee, as to do so would set a dangerous precedent potentially affecting thousands of guarantees held by them. As a result, when confronted with a well advised guarantor, the banks' firm rejections can give way to a willingness to settle.
In his next articles looking at personal guarantees Patrick Selley will address:

• the effect of a creditor's failure to observe important procedural formalities;
• undue influence and other defences; and
• document disclosure requirements.

Patrick specialises in bringing claims against banks, financial advisors and financial institutions in relation to personal guarantees, negligent financial advice and mis-selling.  He is also is a qualified mediator and a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. 

www.patrickselley.com