• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum. Please register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
  • Please note that LegalBeagles is a public forum and the main areas are accessible to all, and as such, please take care your username or posts do not identify you. There is no need to post claim numbers, names or precise amounts to get support with your case. When uploading documents please ensure that you have properly redacted your personal details. Thank you.

PRA group (appealed) on limitation

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Re: PRA group lose on limitation

    E-Mail to an MP ? anybody care to add/takeaway for peeps to land the problem on their MPs///??????

    Seems a circuit judge is above Legislation yet again, and you MPs are not competent to make laws and certain so called learned (Non) judges over-ride public interest, if this is the case then you are out of work,





    surely you are in the know what is going on in the financial world which operates to subtract all monies a member of the British Public with over priced INTEREST RATES and flaunting the whole Basis of Human dignity,


    No more whitewash get the subject brought up or let us go to the European Court of Justice to get fair minded Judges ruling,


    yes I am a constituent and am disgusted with lack of work being under taken in getting fair justice to the people you represent and then some.!


    Greed for monies in this country has brought it to its knees which has stated from top to bottom, the country areas and towns look like slums and this is suppose to be a 1st world country? clean it up

    Comment


    • #47
      Re: PRA group lose on limitation

      Blimey Mike, where do you live? sounds horrendous.

      Anyway, this is a county court judgment, which although we may not agree, has been made based on the submissions made by both parties looking at legislation and prior case law. We might not agree with it because of the perceived consequences but if you break it down you can see why the ruling has been made, even though ( in our opinion ) it's wrong. It will be better to read the full judgment so when Paul is able to publish that things should become a lot clearer too. Plus it is being taken to further appeal so we must wait and see. Getting it to the ECJ would take a couple more appeals and by then we won't have their protection any more Fingers crossed the appeal can go ahead and this can get resolved.

      Actually I don't think the first comment, that the Judge ruled the limitation act doesn't apply to consumer credit agreements, is really the case, simply that cause of action is from termination which can't be until the Default Notice has been issued and not complied with - the 'bad' bit seems to be that there is no limit on when a creditor can chose to issue a default notice. I'm pretty sure TCF & FCA rules, and creditors bankruptcy lol, would soon kick in if creditors started not sending Default Notices and not giving themselves the right to call in debts, or bring court action, for years after payments stop. As well as arguments that that creates an unfair relationship - as interest/charges will continue to accrue as the agreement remains live indefinately.

      In BMW v Hart it was only two missed payments before termination. I believe in this case it was only a matter of a few months too.
      I'm away till the 24th August - please contact @Kati if needed

      “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

      Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

      If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

      Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

      Comment


      • #48
        Re: PRA group lose on limitation

        Maybe I'm a bit thick here or confused.
        Surely the original creditor would issue a default notice long before it gets to the parasite section, so if the default notice is issued is that not the start/action date?

        Comment


        • #49
          Re: PRA group lose on limitation

          I think it would be the date given on the default notice to rectify the arrears etc as that point is when they can recall the entire debt - so makes sense that would be cause of action. And yes that should be before it goes to the debt purchasers.

          The issue comes ( I think) where last payment is made 6/12/18 months before they bother to send a default notice, then if it goes off to the debt purchasers after that, and they bring a claim 5 years later, and the debtor says cause of action was last payment, or first/second missed payment date - as thats the point when a creditor could have issued a default notice or terminated - the court ( at the moment) seems to say that that's of no consequence the cause of action is when the creditor decided to get their house in order to call in the debt and actually issued a default/terminated - so no matter if the creditor waited 6/12/18 months after the agreement was breached - they chose when cause of action is. So a debt that previously would have been deemed stat barred 6 years from last payment might now not be deemed stat barred as that 6 years is now only 5 years from the default notice... etc.

          I think, I'm probably just talking out my behind though
          I'm away till the 24th August - please contact @Kati if needed

          “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

          Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

          If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

          Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

          Comment


          • #50
            Re: PRA group lose on limitation

            Stupid question time

            If the default notice expiry date is ruled definitively as the cause of action, can it remain as cause of action for people who made subsequent payments ( without remedying the breach - so like DMP payments after default )

            I know the Limitation Act says not, as it relies on last payment/acknowledgement, but if Judges are overriding the Limitations Act in favour of the Consumer Credit Act, it shouldn't just apply when it suits them.
            I'm away till the 24th August - please contact @Kati if needed

            “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

            Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

            If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

            Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

            Comment


            • #51
              Re: PRA group lose on limitation

              Good question.

              Comment


              • #52
                Re: PRA group lose on limitation

                Think you're being generous there Onestep, but hey be good to hear other's thoughts on it.
                I'm away till the 24th August - please contact @Kati if needed

                “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

                Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

                Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re: PRA group lose on limitation

                  Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                  Stupid question time

                  If the default notice expiry date is ruled definitively as the cause of action,
                  (2)
                  can it remain as cause of action for people who made subsequent payments
                  (3)
                  ( without remedying the breach - so like DMP payments after default )

                  I know the Limitation Act says not, as it relies on last payment/acknowledgement,
                  (1) but if Judges are overriding the Limitations Act

                  in favour of the Consumer Credit Act, it shouldn't just apply when it suits them.
                  IMO, there would not be room to change the interpretation on that.

                  - (1) They are not overruling the LA1980 as far as I can see, but are seeking to adjust when the original cause of action can be said to take place, for the purposes of the LA1980, in the light of the provisions of the CCA.
                  - (2) It would remain the original accrual of the cause of action, as the LA1980 make the distinction between that and a fresh accrual of the right of action on acknowledgement or part payment.
                  - (3) I assume you are thinking that such fresh accrual may not have affect? I think that is unlikely, as the act is pretty clear on that matter.

                  29 Fresh accrual of action on acknowledgment or part payment.
                  ......
                  ......
                  5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

                  (a) any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or

                  (b) any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

                  and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.
                  I can't see wiggle room in that.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Re: PRA group lose on limitation

                    Me neither Nibbler, and you make absolute sense, thank you, but still, it is very annoying.
                    I'm away till the 24th August - please contact @Kati if needed

                    “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

                    Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                    If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

                    Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Re: PRA group lose on limitation

                      Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                      Stupid question time

                      If the default notice expiry date is ruled definitively as the cause of action, can it remain as cause of action for people who made subsequent payments ( without remedying the breach - so like DMP payments after default )

                      I know the Limitation Act says not, as it relies on last payment/acknowledgement, but if Judges are overriding the Limitations Act in favour of the Consumer Credit Act, it shouldn't just apply when it suits them.
                      The problem is that most credit card agreements, this one certainly does, allow a creditor to contractually terminate. Something the Court of Appeal said was allowed in Brandon v Amex.

                      So, now we have a situation where

                      1) the creditor doesnt need to serve a default cos he can contractually terminate
                      2) the creditor now has no need ever to serve a default notice ad by doing so can extend the limitation period for ever as the agreement for a credit card never ends til its terminated

                      May as well remove s87 entirely
                      I work for QualitySolicitors Howlett Clarke in the Consumer Credit Department. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

                      if you need to contact me please email paultilley@howlettclarke.co.uk . My firms initial advice is always free.

                      I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

                      You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Re: PRA group lose on limitation

                        But if that was the case I.e a long time then surely an unfair relationship would have occurred. I know in this case the difference was small.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Re: PRA group lose on limitation

                          Originally posted by warwick65 View Post
                          But if that was the case I.e a long time then surely an unfair relationship would have occurred. I know in this case the difference was small.
                          and theres the problem, the judge didnt give any reasons as to why, a fundamental requirement of justice !!!

                          How is it unfair? I mean, the judge has just said its allowed, he said that you can take 20 years and then issue, if thats the case its hard to see how it could be unfair under the unfair relationship provisions, theres the problem

                          Its bonkers,
                          I work for QualitySolicitors Howlett Clarke in the Consumer Credit Department. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

                          if you need to contact me please email paultilley@howlettclarke.co.uk . My firms initial advice is always free.

                          I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

                          You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Has this appeal been heard yet?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Permission to appeal just granted pt2537
                              I'm away till the 24th August - please contact @Kati if needed

                              “We may not win by protesting, but if we don’t protest we will lose. If we stand up to them, there is always a chance we will win.” Hetty Bower

                              Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

                              If we have helped you we'd appreciate it if you can leave a review on our Trust Pilot page

                              Find Solicitors offering fixed fees on our sister site - JustBeagle.com

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Amethyst View Post
                                Permission to appeal just granted pt2537
                                on all three grounds
                                I work for QualitySolicitors Howlett Clarke in the Consumer Credit Department. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

                                if you need to contact me please email paultilley@howlettclarke.co.uk . My firms initial advice is always free.

                                I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

                                You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Loading...

                                upgrade to vip

                                Want exclusive access to forums, more privacy and a live chat box? Upgrade to become a bigger part of our community.

                                only £15/yr

                                Offers available. No subscription traps.

                                sign up now



                                Search and Compare fixed fee legal services and find a solicitor near you.

                                Find a Law Firm


                                Working...
                                X