PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

[Dabeuk]

Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

Wow.

Congratulations Di.

Very helpful thread with good info. I will be looking into the case to see if any points can be used within my own fight against CC companies.

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

Recons are usually not in the original format (eg not a leaflet/mailfold envelope etc), the information will be typed in rather than handwritten, no signature, and the terms will be in a readable sized font. It's usually pretty obvious tbh. A copy agreement is an actual copy of the original. Of course for online agreements it is harder as it would only ever be a recon - you need to check through the terms to ensure they are the correct terms for the account you had - type of card, addresses, interest rate, default charge etc etc.

[Achilles]

Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

Excellent result! For future reference exactly how do you tell the difference between a copy of an agreement and a reconstituted copy of the same agreement? I've looked for the answer to this question but have struggled to find a definitive answer. Thanks.

[QCKate]

Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

This is such good news for all concerned (except PRA!!!). What a bunch of youknowwhaters. Congratulations!!

- - - Updated - - -

See above!!!

[Joanna C]

Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

Yrs it is important for consumers to realise that contrary to what the creditors assert when they are suing it is not sufficient to just say an agreement is enforceable and that just producing a “reconstituted” copy does not prove that it is enforceable.

Neither does just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned prove legal assignment.

[Diana M]

Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

I have full knowledge of this case since I was the Defendant (Diana M is short for Diana Mayhew).

I was also the "Client" of Joanna Connolly Solicitors where I currently work. How ironical.

I have no shame in being taken to court for a debt which arose with MBNA when I was in "financial chaos" at the start of the Credit Crunch which was caused by the banks not me or any of you other debtors out there.

But I didn't personally owe PRA any money (as agreed by Recorder Bellamy) and that was the reason I decided to fight this case.

I wasn't only doing it for me, I was doing it for all the other debtors who've been served with claims for a MBNA debt which travelled the same assignment route as mine.

I was also doing it because the documents produced by the Claimant needed forensic examination. As Jo has said the court found them irredeemably unenforceable. There were two claims for two accounts and both credit agreements failed the test in court.

It was a win for the consumer not just me.

PRA have said that they will not be appealing the judgment.

Di (aka Diana Mayhew)