**DISMISSED** Pra group lifted the court stay i defended on money claim on line

[Darren104]

Re: Pra group lifted the court stay i defended on money claim on line

Hello thanks for your interest diane, it was my mistake the company was varde experto and not experto credit sorry. I will have a good read of the post later. Thank you daz

hello

i note that you mention both experto credite and aktiv kapital in the chain of events but does the name varde also ring a bell?

Have a read of this thread and i'll pop back to ask you some more questions tomorrow in the hope that here may be some parallels to share.






Link: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...l=1#post723304

i look forward to helping you.

Di

[percival]

Re: Pra group lifted the court stay i defended on money claim on line

#Tag/dave

[Diana M]

Re: Pra group lifted the court stay i defended on money claim on line

they have now sent me the information . . . .

They have applied to northampton to have the stay lifted march 2017 and has been granted by the court.
I have now received papers from the court asking me to complete a notice of proposed allocation to small claims track . The claimant pra group wants the case to be heard without a hearing.

Do you mean that the Claimant has made an Application to lift the stay AND also an application for a Summary Judgment to strike out your defence since they have now produced some documents?

I ask because you say the Claimant is happy to progress things without a hearing.

Or have you received a Directions Questionnaire from NCCBC not your local county court?

Or have you received a Notice of Hearing from your local county court and a copy of the Claimant's Application/Witness Statement etc?

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Pra group lifted the court stay i defended on money claim on line

I defended the claim by denying that i owed the debt as i had not received any statements of accounts, deed of assignments, credit card agreements etc.

Did you send a formal s 77-79 CCA Request to PRA together with the £1 statutory fee?

If not then you may need to do that asap.

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Pra group lifted the court stay i defended on money claim on line

except the deed of assignment, because they say it is too confidential and are not obliged to send me it.

Well they would say that wouldn't they.

The Deed of Assignment may be crucial to your defence.

My firm forces disclosure of the Deed (even though we have it ) . You may need to do the same.

What is the disputed sum in this claim?

Di

[Diana M]

Re: Pra group lifted the court stay i defended on money claim on line

Hello

I note that you mention both Experto Credite and Aktiv Kapital in the chain of events but does the name Varde also ring a bell?

Have a read of this thread and I'll pop back to ask you some more questions tomorrow in the hope that here may be some parallels to share.

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.

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)

Link: http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...l=1#post723304

I look forward to helping you.

Di