PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

[Achilles]

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

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.

So they lost even though they had copies of the agreements and the letter from MBNA. How does that work?

[Diana M]

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.

FCA CONC 13.1.4 (2)

1. (2) The firm can reconstitute a copy. It can do this by re-populating a template of the relevant agreement form with the details of the specific agreement taken from its records. If the firm does provide a reconstituted copy, it should explain that that is what it has done, to avoid misleading the customer that this is a contemporaneous copy.
   
   Source: https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/CONC/13/1.html
   
   Di

[warwick65]

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

Fantastic news Di

I remember reading somewhere else a post by someone who claimed that all agreements by a certain CC company , which claimed where scanned copies were not and could be shown by getting out a ruler - I have always had my doubts but now maybe not.

It scares me that at least with one debt purchaser, it seems that they will do anything to prove a case, makes me worried to sign anything now.

[Achilles]

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.

Why hasn't somebody tried this? Who would you ask to investigate? Surely not the FCA?

[Diana M]

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

it seems that they will do anything to prove a case

My claim was for £38k with a costs schedule of nearly the same amount from the other side.

Go figure.

Di

[MIKE770]

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

FCA Nooooooooooooooooo Independent non Biased people = US! the only ones can be trusted.

[warwick65]

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.

So they lost even though they had copies of the agreements and the letter from MBNA. How does that work?

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[MIKE770]

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

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