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.

[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)

[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.

[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!!!

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Joanna C]

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.

That is sometimes the case.

However in this instance, and this is why this case is so important, the two signed credit agreements they produced in evidence weren't "reconstituted" documents.

PRA Group (UK) Limited presented them to us and the court as scanned copies of the two original signed MBNA agreements with the prescribed terms & conditions on the back of both. The court found as fact this was not the case for each agreement and that both were therefore irredeemably unenforceable under s.127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974..

Similarly with the Deeds of Assignment even though virtually totally unredacted Deeds were presented to the court, together with letters confirming the assignment from MBNA etc again the court found that that there was no evidence of assignment of our client's debt presented to the court.

[Amethyst]

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.

I was responding to Achilles's question.

[Diana M]

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

PRA Group (UK) Limited presented them to us and the court as scanned copies of the two original signed MBNA agreements with the prescribed terms & conditions on the back of both. The court found as fact this was not the case for each agreement

When I first saw the two credit agreements which PRA produced as evidence even I thought they were genuine since the signature on both of them was mine although I didn't recall signing one of them. I wasn't even in the country on the day/date I was supposed to have done it.

My cross examination was spread over two days and in the end it was my overall evidence which was believed by the court.

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

Di

[MIKE770]

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

Quote:- Di!s comment:- When I first saw the two credit agreements which PRA produced as evidence even I thought they were genuine since the signature on both of them was mine although I didn't recall signing one of them. I wasn't even in the country on the day/date I was supposed to have done it. =

& as we (myself and O.H found out - DJs do not believe such an event can happen regarding signatures on paper (Agreements) that was never seen before? Oh! and that was PRA as known as these days! aka Aktive Kapital etc! via chivers/steve Glassborrow

[Diana M]

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

exactly how do you tell the difference between a copy of an agreement and a reconstituted copy of the same agreement?

It's not always obvious. Some reconstituted documents can be very convincing, but after years of running forensics over literally hundreds of them you get to know what you're looking for.

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.

Sometimes we get out a ruler to measure a document which has been evidenced as the scanned reverse of another document yet it's a different size to. Not possible.

This is why we always tell a client to send a Subject Access Request to the original creditor to see what's on file. Because if the information isn't in the file then how can the debt purchaser produce it as evidence.

And so on.

Di

[R0b]

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

PRA Group (UK) Limited presented them to us and the court as scanned copies of the two original signed MBNA agreements with the prescribed terms & conditions on the back of both. The court found as fact this was not the case for each agreement and that both were therefore irredeemably unenforceable under s.127 (3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974..

Just for my own understanding, had PRA re-constituted the agreement themselves and then suggested that the scanned copies were originals? If the agreement was a recon, would you not expect a witness statement from person who re-constituted the agreement to explain how they have done it?

What was the reason for forensic examination, was that for the alleged signature or the agreements or both?

Similarly with the Deeds of Assignment even though virtually totally unredacted Deeds were presented to the court, together with letters confirming the assignment from MBNA etc again the court found that that there was no evidence of assignment of our client's debt presented to the court.

Are you able to explain the judge's reasoning on this? Was there no evidence because account number and debt amount was not showing on the Deed of Assignment or was it the case that the judge felt that there was not sufficient information in the Deed of Assignment to show the debt account related to Diana?

[mystery1]

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

If i recall correctly they were to say in the letter (for a cca request reply) that it was a recon. Can't remember who said they needed to though.

M1

[MIKE770]

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

pity a full investigation not being taken into the events of this type of abuse, and recompense afforded, it would come under corrupt practices no doubt - just a thought.