PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

[Joanna C]

PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW – WIN

‘“RECONSTITUTED AGREEMENT” – IRREDEEMABLY UNENFORCEABLE”
“UNREDACTED DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENT – NO ASSIGMENT PROVED”

So, held Recorder Bellamy in PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew at Central London County Court on 22nd March 2017, at the end of a 3 day multi track trial, when dismissing PRA’s claim against our client.

Stale debts sued for on the back of 2 ‘reconstituted’ MBNA credit card agreements (May 1999 and October 2000) were held irredeemably unenforceable under CCA 1974. The evidence of an honest witness was preferred to that of so called “reconstituted agreements”.


After 3 days of close forensic examination of, and legal argument about, evidence and documents from both PRA and MBNA stating that our client’s specific debt had been assigned, the court held that no assignment had been proved.


Efforts, over many months, in earlier cases to force PRA into disclosure of un-redacted deeds and deep and sustained forensic challenge to the provenance of documents needed to prove regulatory compliance, finally drew back the veil. The reality behind bulk debt purchasing was revealed.


This decision shows that just saying an agreement is enforceable and producing a “reconstituted” copy does not prove that it is enforceable. Just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned does not prove legal assignment.


Debt purchasers need to provide proof. If that means the pitifully few pence in the pound they pay for stale debts will increase because banks will now have to start keeping original evidence complying with regulatory consumer protection measures, it is hard to imagine many tears being shed, outside the City of London.

[MIKE770]

Start your own thread

[Tinytim]

It’s been a long time since anyone has posted here and sure if the original person is still about but I’ve been battling PRA since March and they now threaten legal action. Similar story, no evidence of deed or chose in action. Many claims and statements without evidence. I think 2024 will see them file a claim in county court but I’m hoping I can defend it. Not nearly as much though, 5k in total.
no offer or adr/mediation either, they are ruthless

[West_Coaster]

PRA claim they bought my credit card account balance, and served a claim through the court. Their claim states that 'Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant in accordance with S136 Law of Property Act 1925' - it was not received. When I first had contact from them I was unaware of them and had never entered into any agreement with the company. I sent them a formal CCA request with the £1 fee, and they did not respond. I followed up with the same request two more times. PRA did not send any of these documents to me. I put in my defence and sent my witness statement to them and the court. I then received their witness statement together with a huge bundle of paperwork claiming to be the assignment etc.....This was the first time I had seen such paperwork and much of it is redacted. My question is; is this lawful at this stage of the proceedings?

[Joanna C]

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

PRA GROUP (UK) Limited were again defeated today in Truro County Court when the District Judge dismissed the claim having found that they -


1. had not proved assignment so no legal right to bring the claim
2. had not proved service of a Default Notice despite producing a reconstituted document
3. were in breach of section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974.




Another happy client!

[cupidstunt]

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

Qutoe "We've seen recon Default Notices signed by an employee who didn't even work for the creditor at the time - they joined the company two years later when their career moves were checked on LinkedIn."

I have a claim against me at the moment with these people and they have supplied me a default notice that is also signed by an employee that hadn't started until 4 years after the default notice date. I also check Linkedin

[warwick65]

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

But surely that's the point. No matter which of these it was surely it's still criminal to do this. Why is no-one complaining about this to the police?

The thing is, if you actually make an accusation of fraud that is very very serious and moves the whole debate into the grounds of the criminal justice system.

I would suspect that if a Judge thought there was fraud he would be bound to inform authorities however that is just a guess

[MIKE770]

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

money has always spoken - says it all = (monetary system) (so called)

[Achilles]

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

I suppose it depends if I have interpreted it correctly

I would have thought so but who knows, and if it did happen , you need to prove the culpability - was it an over zealous employee or was it instructions from on high

But surely that's the point. No matter which of these it was surely it's still criminal to do this. Why is no-one complaining about this to the police?

[warwick65]

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

That is why I was saying it was my reading of it and that there were always other considerations etc

I was not making any allegation of fraud.

[Diana M]

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

@Diana M; for clarification. Was the issue that the documents put forward as being a copy of the original terms printed on the reverse of the agreement were not actually proven to have been on the reverse originally as stated, or was the original front of the agreement 'reconstructed' with a false signature?

There were no allegations of forgery made in court.

The Trial Bundle was four very large volumes. Two witnesses gave oral evidence and both were cross-examined at length.

The Recorder (Judge) made his decision after weighing up all the evidence presented over three long days.

Di

[Amethyst]

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

[MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION]; for clarification. Was the issue that the documents put forward as being a copy of the original terms printed on the reverse of the agreement were not actually proven to have been on the reverse originally as stated, or was the original front of the agreement 'reconstructed' with a false signature? I think that needs clarifying [MENTION=98117]warwick65[/MENTION] before the conversation goes much further along those lines.

[warwick65]

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

Surely this is criminal and should be reported to the police. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it because losing a few quid in costs isn't going to stop them.

I suppose it depends if I have interpreted it correctly

I would have thought so but who knows, and if it did happen , you need to prove the culpability - was it an over zealous employee or was it instructions from on high

[Achilles]

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

I am sure that Di will explain but it seems they did not have copies of the agreements signed at the time but did have copies of Dis signature. They then got a copy of the agreement that would have been signed and put the signature on it.

Sorry if I have got that wrong but that's how I read it.

Surely this is criminal and should be reported to the police. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it because losing a few quid in costs isn't going to stop them.

[Diana M]

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

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.

The congratulations really belong to Joanna Connolly and Counsel who presented very technical and complicated legal arguments which no Litigant in Person could have done.

A lot of ground was covered in a three day Trial, and while each case is different what was unmasked in court on this occasion will prove valuable when fighting other claims.

Di