 On prot 1, art 1 ECHR, he held that the right was not violated, because s 127(3) was intended by Parliament to make any unfair contract unenforceable, so that one might not even get the amount back (possibly even in a mildly penal approach).At 71 he remarked,
Something more drastic was needed in order to focus attention on the need for lenders to comply strictly with these particular obligations.Even though in individual cases there may be bad outcomes, the policy "overall ... may well be a proportionate response" [74].